被投诉人
专家组工作人员：
你们好，我是仲裁院案件编号FA1704001725147仲裁案中涉及的21个域名的持有人lin zong xing(中文：林宗兴 )，根据《统一域名争议解决政策》第 5(b)(i)条规定被投诉人在答辩书中“特别要就投诉书中所陈述的内容和论断做出答辩和包括可以支持被投诉人（域名持有人）注册和使用该域名的一切理由…”。 投诉人要获胜，必须同时成功举证政策第 4(a)(i), (ii), (iii)条 所列举的三个要素。鉴于第 4(a)条的规定。现对域名仲裁案件编号：FA1704001725147涉案域名进行如下答辩。
本案涉案域名除了少数几个是我通过购买合法取得的，譬如windowsvr.com、windowsiot.com等等。其他域名都是我根据域名先注册先拥有的原则合法注册取得。
本人购买或注册这批域名，要么是因为喜欢想收藏这些域名，要么就是为了以后的项目而储备这些域名。由于域名的唯一性，如果我现在不事先注册做储备，如果被他人先注册了，我以后的项目将会无域名可用。
本人在持有本案涉案域名期间，从未有过任何损害本案投诉人的行为。也从未主动向本案投诉人推销过这批涉案域名。投诉人也未提交任何证据，能够证明我方恶意使用过本案涉案域名。同时投诉人也未提交任何证据能够证明我方主动向投诉方推销过本案涉案域名。
综合以上信息，可以判定我方是合情合理合法地持有本案涉案域名。也从未利用本案涉案域名做出过任何损害投诉人利益的行为。本人仅仅是出于喜欢或者为未来项目储备域名而注册或购买了这批域名。投诉人这种行为是赤裸裸的反向劫持域名行为。
因此，请专家组认定投诉人对本案涉案的这批域名的投诉不成立，本案涉案的这批域名仍归我（现域名持有人）所有。后附本案涉案域名。本案涉案域名如下:
<azurenotebooks.com><hololensemulator.com><microsoftai.com><microsoftbaas.com><microsoftdownload.com><microsoftengage.com><microsoftgraph.com><microsoftinvoicing.com><microsoftmechanics.com><microsoftmeetings.com><microsoftminiac.com><microsoftplanner.com><microsoftpresence.com><microsoftsu**cedial.com><microsoftsu**cestudio.com><microsoftteam.com><microsoftteams.com><office365planner.com><visioonline.com><windowsiot.com><windowsvr.com>
Language of the Proceedings
In relation to the language of these administrative proceedings Complainant asserts:
It should be noted that the Respondent filed its Response in Chinese even though Complainant has argued that the proceedings should proceed in English. Although Respondent has not argued that the proceedings should be in Chinese, Respondent reiterates that this same Respondent has been involved in other UDRP cases where the panels have found that the evidence establishes that Respondent has a working knowledge of English. See NVIDIA Corporation v. Linzongxing, Lin Zongxing D2015-0076 (WIPO, March 9, 2015) (Respondent submitted a response in Chinese which showed that he had an understanding of the nature of the proceeding and the contents of the Complaint. Additionally, the domain name and other domain names owned by the Respondent are comprised of English word trademarks in combination with generic terms which shows that he has a knowledge of the English language); See Wells Fargo v. Lin Zong Xing, FA1704833 (FORUM, Jan. 9, 2017)(finding that this same Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language based on the domain names registered and the websites that they point to). As a result, it is clear that English is the appropriate language for the proceeding.
(emphasis added)
The Panel’s Decision on Language
In fact, contrary to Complainant’s assertion above, Respondent has argued that these proceedings should be conducted in Chinese. The Panel notes the following Chinese language email correspondence from Respondent to the Forum dated May 4, 2017:
“我方不懂英文 请用中文谢谢 根据ICANN域名仲裁相关条款 我方强烈 要求用中文 因为我方不懂英文”
And,
“很抱歉 我方不懂英文， 況且我方在易名中国注册的域名， 域名注册协议就是中文， 根据ICANN域名仲裁相关规定， 我方有权要求使用中文。”(emphasis original)
The Panel (who speaks fluently and reads Mandarin Chinese as a second language) translates the Respondent’s emails, as follows:
“I don’t understand English. Please use Chinese, thank you. According to the relevant ICANN UDRP articles, I vehemently demand that Chinese be used, as I don’t understand English.”
And:
“Very sorry, I don’t understand English. Given that I registered the domains with China’s Ename Technology Co. Ltd., and the registration agreement is written in Chinese, according to the relevant ICANN UDRP rules, I am entitled to demand the use of Chinese.”
Respondent’s email protestations as to his inability to understand English notwithstanding, fairness requires that this panel concurrently weigh and consider Complainant’s interests as well as the findings of earlier panels when presented with the same language issue in relation to this same Respondent.
Complainant avers as follows:
“All of the disputed domain names show that Respondent has a working knowledge of the English language because the domain names include trademarks and English language words such as notebooks, emulator, download, invoicing and the like. Additionally, other decisions against this same Respondent have proceeded in the English language even though the registration agreement was in Chinese because it was found that Respondent has a level of familiarity with and knowledge of English. See NVIDIA Corporation v. Linzongxing, Lin Zongxing D2015-0076 (WIPO, March 9, 2015) (Respondent submitted a response that indicated an understanding of the English language and the domain names registered by the Respondent consist of English word trade marks in combination with generic terms); See Wells Fargo v. Lin Zong Xing, FA 1704833 (FORUM, Jan. 9, 2017)(finding that this same Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language based on the domain names registered and the websites that they point to).”
The Panel notes that, under circumstances virtually identical to those of the present proceedings, The NVIDIA Panel specifically found in relation to this same Respondent:
“The Respondent is a sophisticated domainer who regularly registers domain names.
….
Further, a number of the Respondent’s registrations indicate that the Respondent actively registers domain names which are either highly anticipated or prospective products or newly-announced up and coming company mergers, partnerships, products, etc.
Examples include <amazoncloud.co>, <faceboook.cn>, <ipadmini4.com>, <microsoftcloud.co>, <nortonsecurity2016>,
<urbaoutfitters.com>, <windowsminitablet.com>, <windowsmobile11.com>, <xbox2.cn> and <youtubemusiccommunity.com>.”
That is, earlier panels in both the NVIDIA and the Wells Fargo & Company decision to which Complainant refers, each found on the evidence presented that the Respondent, Lin Zong Xing, is conversant and proficient in the English language and that the proceedings in those actions would be conducted in English.
After reviewing the evidence in the present case, as well as the decisions in NVIDIA and the Wells Fargo & Company, the Panel decides that no prejudice will result to Respondent and that unnecessary and unreasonable delay and expense would likely result to Complainant, if this Panel were to require that the Complaint and evidentiary exhibits be translated into Chinese.
With a view to promoting fairness and efficiency, the panel will, to the extent practicable, accept and adopt the Complainant’s submissions in English, and will accept and adopt the Respondent’s submissions in Chinese.
The Panel’s findings will be expressed in English and Chinese for the convenience of both parties. In the event of discrepancies where both languages appear, the English text will prevail over the Chinese translation.
审查结果
讨论
《统一域名争议解决政策规则》（“规则”）中 15(a) 段规定，陪审团“应基于当事人所提交的陈述及证据，根据争议解决政策、本规则以及可予使用的法律规则和原则裁决争议”。
规则 4(a) 段要求投诉人必须逐个证明以下 3 个因素以获得庭训要求域名被取消或转让：
(1) 被投诉人注册的域名与投诉人享有权利的商品商标或服务商标相同或具有足以导致混淆的相似性；
(2) 被投诉人对成为诉讼标的的域名不享有权利或合法权益；和
(3) 被投诉人系恶意注册和使用域名。
相同和/或足以导致混淆的相似性
Each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous, registered trademarks and incorporate in their entirety Complainant’s AZURE, HOLOLENS, MICROSOFT, OFFICE 365, MICROSOFT SU**CE, VISIO and WINDOWS marks, adding only the TLD “.com”.
The panel finds that ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
本案中的各个争议域名均与投诉人颇享声誉的注册商标極为相似并足以导致混淆。 这批争议域名完全包含了投诉人商标的AZURE, HOLOLENS, MICROSOFT, OFFICE 365, MICROSOFT SU**CE, VISIO和WINDOWS等字樣，仅仅加了 “.com”的TLD.
本专家组判定本案满足了政策中4(a)(i)条件。
权利或合法权益
Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant’s AZURE, HOLOLENS, MICROSOFT, MICROSOFT SU**CE, OFFICE 365, VISIO or WINDOWS marks, nor has Respondent used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The panel finds that ¶ 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.
被投诉人并不以投诉人的AZURE, HOLOLENS, MICROSOFT, MICROSOFT SU**CE, OFFICE 365, VISIO和WINDOWS等商标而为人知，且并不使用争议域名提供任何货品服务销售或其他正当，公平的非商业用途。 本专家组判定本案满足了政策中第 4(a)(ii)条件。
恶意注册和使用
Respondent’s claims that it has registered and passively held the disputed domain names because Respondent liked collecting the names and wanted to use them for unspecified future projects notwithstanding, at least the following circumstances, viewed together and not standing alone, compel a finding of bad faith registration and use of each of the disputed domain names:
1) At the time that Respondent registered the disputed domain names, Complainant’s AZURE, HOLOLENS, MICROSOFT, MICROSOFT SU**CE, OFFICE 365, VISIO and WINDOWS marks were famous and familiar to countless consumers;
2) Prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint, Respondent had shielded its identity using a privacy protection service;
3) Although most of the disputed domain names do not resolve to active websites, the <windowsvr.com> domain resolves to a page indicating that the domain is for sale;
4) Many of the disputed domain names were registered in anticipation of a new product or service for Complainant with similar names, thus, evidencing Respondent’s intention wrongfully to create an association with Complainant and its products and services;
5) Respondent has been accused in other UDRP cases of actively registering domain names in an opportunistic manner; and
6) based on an investigation that Complainant conducted through counsel in China related to <microsoftteams.com>, it was determined that Respondent was offering the domain name for sale for 200,000 RMB or approximately $30,000 USD.
Respondent’s practice of opportunistically registering domain names in order to exploit the fact that new products may emerge demonstrates bad faith.
In light of all of the circumstances, including the worldwide reputation of the Complainant and fame of the marks, this Panel, like the NVIDIA panel when it considered that actions of this same Respondent, cannot conceive of any plausible good faith use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent.
Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent’s allegations of reverse domain name hijacking by Complainant are wholly baseless and without merit.
被投诉人声称因喜欢收藏或为了以后的项目而注册，拥有这批争议域名，但整体上来看，综观下列情况，则能轻易达到被投诉人恶意注册和使用争议域名的结论：
1) 在被投诉人注册这批争议域名时，AZURE, HOLOLENS, MICROSOFT, MICROSOFT SU**CE, OFFICE 365, VISIO 和WINDOWS是有名的商标，且为廣大群众熟知；
2) 在投诉人提交投诉书之前，被投诉人刻意的隐瞒了真正的身份；
3) 雖然这批争议域名大部份没有活跃的网站，但其中<windowsvr.com>指向一页推销该域名；
4) 这批争议域名中包含了许多投诉人尚未问世（但已注册的）货品或服务的商标及字樣，显示了被投诉人蓄意且不正当的想把自己和投诉人的名声连接在一起；
5) 被投诉人在其他UDRP案件中，曾被指控以投机且不正当的方式注册域名；
6) 根据投诉人在中国的律师的调查，被投诉人曾以人民币200，000 即美金30，000 的价钱，试图销售<microsoftteams.com>域名。
被投诉人利用投诉人即将出茏的新货品，服务而恶意注册完全相同或大致相同的争议域名之一贯的投机行为成立。
综上各个情况，并考虑到投诉人享誉全球的名声和商标，本专家组，正同NVIDIA的专家组关注此被投诉人之行为後的决定，判定被投诉人并无可能合法且正当的使用这批争议域名。
最後，本专家组认为被投诉人指控投诉人“赤裸裸的反向劫持域名行为”毫无根据而不能成立。
裁决
通过审查根据 ICANN 政策要求的三方面因素，陪审团决定同意补救措施 (TRANSFERRED)。
因此，兹命令被投诉人向投诉人转让<azurenotebooks.com>, <hololensemulator.com>, <microsoftai.com>, <microsoftbaas.com>, <microsoftdownload.com>, <microsoftengage.com>, <microsoftgraph.com>, <microsoftinvoicing.com>,<microsoftmechanics.com>, <microsoftmeetings.com>, <microsoftminiac.com>, <microsoftplanner.com>, <microsoftpresence.com>, <microsoftsu**cedial.com>, <microsoftsu**cestudio.com>, <microsoftteam.com>, <microsoftteams.com>, <office365planner.com>, <visioonline.com>, <windowsiot.com>, <windowsvr.com> 域名。
David L. Kreider，陪审员／专家组
日期：May 20, 2017
雷达卡
发表于 2018-1-25 01:53:01
收藏
表示支持
表示反对
提升卡
沉默卡
变色卡
千斤顶
照妖镜
楼主
